"Plus One to Semck for <<
WAIT! So you're saying.... early Americans were all Christians?

Would that include the founders?>>

Minus One to Obi for false logic--AGAIN. Obi, I thought you were smarter than to get into an argument with Semck and Draugnar using such lame logic. Maybe it's whatever you're drinking--I don't know."

I suppose you didn't take heed of my response to that?

EVEN WITHOUT the Founders, Mujus, the slaveholders and sellers in America were largely Christian...

And now, I pose it to you, to CA, and semck AGAIN--

WHO BUT THE CHRISTIANS *CONQUERED* those people and captured them in the first place?!

xD

I'm sorry, but It seems to me that you're the one being mighty hypocritical here:

First you argue tooth and nail that Jefferson was not at all a sort of Deist as I said, and that he was of course Christian...

And then you try and take *my* (correct) assetion of the Founders not being Christian and use a few Founding Fathers to stand in for ALL the slaveholders and sellers while completely IGNORING who conquered Africa, captured Africans, and forced Christian conversion on them in the first place!

I assure you--

Whatever I'm drinking is at least of a higher quality of that drivel you've embarrassed yourself with, you're usually better than that, I'm disappointed.

+1 lewisk, THANK YOU...

obiwan, you seem to think people who call themselves Christians, BUT GO AGAINST WHAT GOD SAYS are still Christians.

And it seems that whenever God does decide to speed things along, people get angry. Hang back, people get angry

@obi

I guess that it boils down to this. You're being short sighted and only looking at the Slave Trade in the Americas. Then for you it's easy. The guys who started it were Christian. You got the results you wanted so you don't have to dig any further into the topic.

For me, it seems obvious that we need to look at slavery prior to Christianity if we are to have any perspective on the affect Christians have had on the institution. Just how far have we come from the ancient practices that made you another person's property if they were strong enough to kill you and chose not to?

Look at the Code of Hammurabi:
http://www.thenagain.info/Classes/Sources/Hammurabi-Slavery.html

Harboring a slave brought the death penalty. Returning one gave you two shekels of silver. The only law that was actually binding to the slave owner said that a slave who willingly sold himself into slavery would be free on the fourth year. The treatment of slaves doesn't seem to have been much of a topic of conversation before the Judeo-Christian culture began to question it. Not surprisingly this is the first major culture to abolish it.

"EVEN WITHOUT the Founders, Mujus, the slaveholders and sellers in America were largely Christian..."


Actually, in your world view, a good portion of your Athiest founders were slaveholders. Slaveholding had little to do with religion. You can put our modern day morals on it all you want, but owning a slave was like owning a car back then. In some parts of the country it was ubiquitous if you had the money and the need.

I think this is the largest anti-obi alliance eve seen on the forums

and the christians didn't conquer the people that provided slaves. That is wrong historically. Not that you care. I assume I'm going to get a 4 page response as to why your historically incorrect statement is correct.

"I think this is the largest anti-obi alliance eve seen on the forums"

It happens when you talk squarely out of your ass. People who actually have some knowledge about the subject tend to pick up on it.

there is a HUGE difference between being Christian in name (which nearly everyone was, at the time) and truly Christian

Or, perhaps, fortress, being christian meant something completely different back then than it does now, or in your parlance "truly Christian"

"Obiwan, you seem to think people who call themselves Christians, BUT GO AGAINST WHAT GOD SAYS are still Christians."

Well, unless God himself wants to come down and set things straight...

If one "Christian" sect claims a different view from another Christian sect...

Who are you to say they aren't Christian?
Who gets to decide what's valid Christianity and what's not?
That seems a pretty slippery slope, don't you think?

Sounds a lot to me like that's stopping just short of "My idea/accepted ideas of Christianity are OK, but yours are not *true* Christianity because I disagree with them."

That have as much validity to claim a Christian faith as anyone else...

So again, unless you want to play the Who's In/Who's Out game...everyone who wants in is in.

Such is the problem of any religion with multiple sects and interpretations.

"there is a HUGE difference between being Christian in name (which nearly everyone was, at the time) and truly Christian"

TRULY Christian?

I repeat my point--who are YOU to play exclusionist here and police interpretation?

I is clear that the New Testament (at least) does not support capturing and conquering people.

"It happens when you talk squarely out of your ass. People who actually have some knowledge about the subject tend to pick up on it."

Oh, well, you know, we Jews with goatees just have a way of gathering large coalitions against...

Then again, Jesus was a groovier guy than me and had better hair. :p

"That have as much validity to claim a Christian faith as anyone else..."

Actually I think the founders who declared themselves christians have greater validity...

@ lewisk

You seem to have ignored the idea of a paradigm shift. So yeah slavery was allowed as it was all over the ancient world with the major difference that there was attention showed to the treatment of the slave, which moved to the eventual (actually ongoing) abolition of slavery. Gripe if you want about what God did or didn't do, it doesn't strenghten obiwan's claim that this is was a immoral Christian mess. It wasn't. It was an immoral mess accepted in ancient societies that Christian's played a major role in cleaning up. Many of them doing so well before the first atheists arrived on the abolitionist stage.

Not much room for error with "do unto others what you want done to yourself"

"I is clear that the New Testament (at least) does not support capturing and conquering people."

Still have to deal with the OT...if a Christian sect wanted to emphasize portions of the OT as well as the NT, even if they claim the NT has jurisdiction, again, who are you to say their interpretation of a text is invalid?

With the OT, they only fought wars with Gods approval. They didn't go around randomly killing people.

"Actually I think the founders who declared themselves christians have greater validity..."

WHY? lol

They're just men, like everyone else, those Founders that actually WERE Christian--again, not Franklin or Madison or Jefferson and so on--were just men.

What makes their interpretation of a text better or worse than some schmuck today?

If it's open to interpretation, it's open to EVERYONE'S interpretation...how do you govern who's right and who's wrong other that "These people agree with my idea of what the interpretation should be?"

"I guess that it boils down to this. You're being short sighted and only looking at the Slave Trade in the Americas. Then for you it's easy. The guys who started it were Christian. You got the results you wanted so you don't have to dig any further into the topic."

In fairness, CA, we started this by talking about the Abolitionist movement, so I was thus only concerning myself with the Americas as we were concerning ourselves with American history.

So I'm not being short-sighted, just limiting my scope to the subject that was raised.

"What makes their interpretation of a text better or worse than some schmuck today?"

Well firstly they studied it daily for years and knew it backward and forwards. Shmuck.

But that is besides the point, I feel they have the best insight whether or not they were christian


Because they saw themselves as

"With the OT, they only fought wars with Gods approval. They didn't go around randomly killing people."

Um, I'm pretty sure people killed other people without God's approval PLENTY in the OT...

Sometimes they're punished (most of the time they are) but still, they do.

What's more--are you REALLY going to argue it's OK to hold the genocides in the Bible as OK and groups who used them to justify their own genocide in history as OK by the logic of "Well, God told them to, so it's OK?"

I'm sorry--

Jews OR Amalekites, setting out to kill ALL the men, women, and children of a group is WRONG. PERIOD.

"Well firstly they studied it daily for years and knew it backward and forwards. Shmuck."

So do plenty of bigots today and previous!

LOL

"But that is besides the point, I feel they have the best insight whether or not they were christian"

So because YOU feel they had the best insight, your subjective opinion is good enough to deny others the right to their interpretation???

Cherry-picking subjectivity at its finest!

So let me get this straight. Obi started by arguing that the founders, even though they considered themselves Christians, were not christians. Now he's areguing slaveholders, whether or not they considered themselves christians, they are christians.

Just pointing this out. Absolutely fascinating.

And, again, slavery among christians had little to do with religion, it was driven by economics as were the later religious apologetics for it. Abolitionism on the other hand, was spearheaded by pious christians who were horrified by the institution

Love how obi thinks he knows better how to run the world then the guy who created it was...

Also, how can you have an idea of what evil/wrong is without a knowledge of good/right? Who sets the standard for the moral code? What if I decide genocides are alright, why is your idea of good better than mine?

"and the christians didn't conquer the people that provided slaves. That is wrong historically. Not that you care. I assume I'm going to get a 4 page response as to why your historically incorrect statement is correct."

Who conquered Africa, sir?
Who?
WHO?

I'm sorry, but that's where the slaves came from...there's a reason they're now called AFRICAN-Americans...

WHO conquered Africa, sir?

Who?

Who other than people of the Christian faith conquered and sold these people in Africa?

Hm?

how do you govern who's right and who's wrong other that "These people agree with my idea of what the interpretation should be?"


By not governing it, but being willing to look at the big picture rather than a small part of the history that might seem to back up your pre-conceived notion?

"So do plenty of bigots today and previous!

LOL"

You are absolutely right, and they know it alot better than you do, and you make a damned fool of yourself when you wade into something you do not understand and try to prove them wrong on their own terms

LOL

"So because YOU feel they had the best insight, your subjective opinion is good enough to deny others the right to their interpretation???

Cherry-picking subjectivity at its finest! "

I'm just shaking my head. So the founders have equal say with some historical illiterate kid from california on the topic of whether the founders were Christian?